[PATCH] pakfire: Fix small bug: wrong pak count on list

[PATCH] pakfire: Fix small bug: wrong pak count on list

[Robin Roevens]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1105 bytes --]

Fixes pakfire list installed/notinstalled command displaying the
count of all available paks instead of the count of actual installed
respectively not installed paks.

Signed-off-by: Robin Roevens <robin.roevens(a)disroot.org>
---
 src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl b/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
index f9a19b60d..c15e54f94 100644
--- a/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
+++ b/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
@@ -512,13 +512,13 @@ sub dblist {
 		foreach $line (sort @db) {
 			next unless ($line =~ /.*;.*;.*;/ );
 			$use_color = "";
-			$count++;
 			@templine = split(/\;/,$line);
 			if ("$filter" eq "notinstalled") {
 				next if ( -e "$Conf::dbdir/installed/meta-$templine[0]" );
 			} elsif ("$filter" eq "installed") {
 				next unless ( -e "$Conf::dbdir/installed/meta-$templine[0]" );
 			}
+			$count++;
 			if ("$forweb" eq "forweb")
 			 {
 				if ("$filter" eq "notinstalled") {
-- 
2.31.1


-- 
Dit bericht is gescanned op virussen en andere gevaarlijke
inhoud door MailScanner en lijkt schoon te zijn.

Re: [PATCH] pakfire: Fix small bug: wrong pak count on list

[Bernhard Bitsch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1201 bytes --]

Reviewed-by: Bernhard Bitsch <bbitsch(a)ipfire.org>
Tested-by: Bernhard Bitsch <bbitsch(a)ipfire.org>

Am 25.06.2021 um 00:07 schrieb Robin Roevens:
> Fixes pakfire list installed/notinstalled command displaying the
> count of all available paks instead of the count of actual installed
> respectively not installed paks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Robin Roevens <robin.roevens(a)disroot.org>
> ---
>   src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl b/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
> index f9a19b60d..c15e54f94 100644
> --- a/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
> +++ b/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
> @@ -512,13 +512,13 @@ sub dblist {
>   		foreach $line (sort @db) {
>   			next unless ($line =~ /.*;.*;.*;/ );
>   			$use_color = "";
> -			$count++;
>   			@templine = split(/\;/,$line);
>   			if ("$filter" eq "notinstalled") {
>   				next if ( -e "$Conf::dbdir/installed/meta-$templine[0]" );
>   			} elsif ("$filter" eq "installed") {
>   				next unless ( -e "$Conf::dbdir/installed/meta-$templine[0]" );
>   			}
> +			$count++;
>   			if ("$forweb" eq "forweb")
>   			 {
>   				if ("$filter" eq "notinstalled") {
> 

Re: [PATCH] pakfire: Fix small bug: wrong pak count on list

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1314 bytes --]

Thanks!

Reviewed-by: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>

> On 24 Jun 2021, at 23:07, Robin Roevens <robin.roevens(a)disroot.org> wrote:
> 
> Fixes pakfire list installed/notinstalled command displaying the
> count of all available paks instead of the count of actual installed
> respectively not installed paks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Robin Roevens <robin.roevens(a)disroot.org>
> ---
> src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl b/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
> index f9a19b60d..c15e54f94 100644
> --- a/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
> +++ b/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
> @@ -512,13 +512,13 @@ sub dblist {
> 		foreach $line (sort @db) {
> 			next unless ($line =~ /.*;.*;.*;/ );
> 			$use_color = "";
> -			$count++;
> 			@templine = split(/\;/,$line);
> 			if ("$filter" eq "notinstalled") {
> 				next if ( -e "$Conf::dbdir/installed/meta-$templine[0]" );
> 			} elsif ("$filter" eq "installed") {
> 				next unless ( -e "$Conf::dbdir/installed/meta-$templine[0]" );
> 			}
> +			$count++;
> 			if ("$forweb" eq "forweb")
> 			 {
> 				if ("$filter" eq "notinstalled") {
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dit bericht is gescanned op virussen en andere gevaarlijke
> inhoud door MailScanner en lijkt schoon te zijn.
> 

Re: [PATCH] pakfire: Fix small bug: wrong pak count on list

[Robin Roevens]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2624 bytes --]

Hi all

I have been patiently waiting for quite some time now. But I'm starting
to think my patches are silently forgotten? Or is there something else
wrong? Are there some more procedures I have to follow, which I didn't?

This one in particular was reviewed and all, but never implemented.

Thanks
Robin

Michael Tremer schreef op vr 16-07-2021 om 11:50 [+0100]:
> Thanks!
> 
> Reviewed-by: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>
> 
> > On 24 Jun 2021, at 23:07, Robin Roevens <robin.roevens(a)disroot.org>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > Fixes pakfire list installed/notinstalled command displaying the
> > count of all available paks instead of the count of actual
> > installed
> > respectively not installed paks.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Robin Roevens <robin.roevens(a)disroot.org>
> > ---
> > src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
> > b/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
> > index f9a19b60d..c15e54f94 100644
> > --- a/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
> > +++ b/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
> > @@ -512,13 +512,13 @@ sub dblist {
> >                 foreach $line (sort @db) {
> >                         next unless ($line =~ /.*;.*;.*;/ );
> >                         $use_color = "";
> > -                       $count++;
> >                         @templine = split(/\;/,$line);
> >                         if ("$filter" eq "notinstalled") {
> >                                 next if ( -e
> > "$Conf::dbdir/installed/meta-$templine[0]" );
> >                         } elsif ("$filter" eq "installed") {
> >                                 next unless ( -e
> > "$Conf::dbdir/installed/meta-$templine[0]" );
> >                         }
> > +                       $count++;
> >                         if ("$forweb" eq "forweb")
> >                          {
> >                                 if ("$filter" eq "notinstalled") {
> > -- 
> > 2.31.1
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Dit bericht is gescanned op virussen en andere gevaarlijke
> > inhoud door MailScanner en lijkt schoon te zijn.
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
Dit bericht is gescanned op virussen en andere gevaarlijke
inhoud door MailScanner en lijkt schoon te zijn.

Re: [PATCH] pakfire: Fix small bug: wrong pak count on list

[Michael Tremer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6078 bytes --]

Hello,

> On 31 Jan 2022, at 22:36, Robin Roevens <robin.roevens(a)disroot.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Peter, Michael, *
> 
> No problem, good to know that my submissions are still in the running.
> I will try to poke a bit more in the future if I don't see much
> progress. :-)
> 
> I will re-submit my last patch, where I add extra meta-data to all
> pak's, against current next, as the previous one was based on next of
> about half a year ago.
> As that patch touches all pak lfs files it is quite a big one and,
> until it is accepted and merged, it currently requires me to revise it
> every time a pak lfs file is changed in next.
> I will mark that previous patch as superseded in patchwork.
> 
> An earlier patch "pakfire: implement function to parse meta files" is
> still accurate on current next but still needs review by others.
> It was a response on Jonatan's suggestion for a unique pakfire function
> to read meta-data (where the idea was approved by Michael
> here: https://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2021-May/010249.html
> )
> 
> Any other previous patches should not be reviewed or merged for now.
> There where a few discussion around them which resulted in that meta-
> data patch and the meta-data-parse-function which lays the groundwork
> for upcoming patches/improvements to pakfire and services.cgi. (The
> whole idea was explained in
> https://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2021-April/010094.html
> )
> I'm not sure what status to give those old patches in patchwork for
> now, as they will be superseded after the above mentioned 2 patches are
> reviewed/merged.
> 
> Also I noticed another patch of mine:  "[v2] misc-progs: getipstat:
> Refactor + extend", which was already merged
> (https://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2021-May/010151.html),
> is still marked as new in patchwork. Should I proceed to mark it as
> Accepted?

Yes. Patchwork sometimes cannot track them properly and they won’t be updated automatically.

-Michael

> 
> Regards
> Robin
> 
> Peter Müller schreef op ma 31-01-2022 om 17:43 [+0000]:
>> Hello Robin,
>> hello Michael,
>> hello *,
>> 
>> there is no actual reason for this patch being ignored this whole
>> time at all.
>> 
>> Given the - um - rather messy situation we have in Patchwork, I
>> simply did not
>> have time to clean this up yet. Therefore, it scrolled past page one,
>> and I
>> forgot about it. Zut alors. :-/
>> 
>> @Robin: The patch is now included in my temporary branch for Core
>> Update 164
>> (
>> https://git.ipfire.org/?p=people/pmueller/ipfire-2.x.git;a=commit;h=a0
>> 6a552ccf0cfcc0df0ebb04a5ba0346897aa42e).
>> I will go through the other patches of yours later this week. In
>> general, feel
>> free to poke at us once in a while to keep things moving. :-)
>> 
>> @Arne: Please merge my temporary branch for Core Update 164 into
>> next, if this
>> is fine to you. It also contains some bug fixes I discovered the
>> other day.
>> 
>> Thanks, and best regards,
>> Peter Müller
>> 
>> 
>>> Hello Robin,
>>> 
>>> Sorry for this. It is okay to end a reminder every once in a while.
>>> 
>>> @Peter: Is there any reason this patch did not get merged, yet?
>>> 
>>> -Michael
>>> 
>>>> On 30 Jan 2022, at 21:13, Robin Roevens
>>>> <robin.roevens(a)disroot.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all
>>>> 
>>>> I have been patiently waiting for quite some time now. But I'm
>>>> starting
>>>> to think my patches are silently forgotten? Or is there something
>>>> else
>>>> wrong? Are there some more procedures I have to follow, which I
>>>> didn't?
>>>> 
>>>> This one in particular was reviewed and all, but never
>>>> implemented.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>> Michael Tremer schreef op vr 16-07-2021 om 11:50 [+0100]:
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 24 Jun 2021, at 23:07, Robin Roevens
>>>>>> <robin.roevens(a)disroot.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Fixes pakfire list installed/notinstalled command displaying
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> count of all available paks instead of the count of actual
>>>>>> installed
>>>>>> respectively not installed paks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Robin Roevens <robin.roevens(a)disroot.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl | 2 +-
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> diff --git a/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
>>>>>> b/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
>>>>>> index f9a19b60d..c15e54f94 100644
>>>>>> --- a/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
>>>>>> +++ b/src/pakfire/lib/functions.pl
>>>>>> @@ -512,13 +512,13 @@ sub dblist {
>>>>>>                 foreach $line (sort @db) {
>>>>>>                         next unless ($line =~ /.*;.*;.*;/ );
>>>>>>                         $use_color = "";
>>>>>> -                       $count++;
>>>>>>                         @templine = split(/\;/,$line);
>>>>>>                         if ("$filter" eq "notinstalled") {
>>>>>>                                 next if ( -e
>>>>>> "$Conf::dbdir/installed/meta-$templine[0]" );
>>>>>>                         } elsif ("$filter" eq "installed") {
>>>>>>                                 next unless ( -e
>>>>>> "$Conf::dbdir/installed/meta-$templine[0]" );
>>>>>>                         }
>>>>>> +                       $count++;
>>>>>>                         if ("$forweb" eq "forweb")
>>>>>>                          {
>>>>>>                                 if ("$filter" eq
>>>>>> "notinstalled") {
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 2.31.1
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Dit bericht is gescanned op virussen en andere gevaarlijke
>>>>>> inhoud door MailScanner en lijkt schoon te zijn.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Dit bericht is gescanned op virussen en andere gevaarlijke
>>>> inhoud door MailScanner en lijkt schoon te zijn.
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Dit bericht is gescanned op virussen en andere gevaarlijke
> inhoud door MailScanner en lijkt schoon te zijn.
>